NFL - Large Sensor End Zone Cam... Your Thoughts?

I know I'm going to regret wading into this...

I dont think anyone takes issue with the fact that you make jokes. My guess is (some) people are more bugged by the nature of some of those jokes and by your occasionally combative spirit.

Not everyone will be bothered by any of that. Some may enjoy it. But if you keep it up, you'll continue to tick the same people off.

Speaking for myself, I am offended by the repetitive jokes that objectify women. Now and then may be a lark, but seizing every opportunity might reflect a worldview. In particular, you made a crack about hiring a Black woman and then eventually marrying her. I'd be glad to explain why I found it offensive in context but I'll assume that you don't care or wouldn't believe my explanation.

Secondly, you sometimes get defensive and sort of list off your credentials, as you did responding to JP. Probably no one cares. I enjoy a good debate and combat of ideas even when blood gets drawn, but a competition of career stature just seems distasteful. Maybe you feel put upon and hounded, so I think it's forgivable. But I really doubt anyone cares.

And the whole objection to diversity hiring seems a bit greedy for white guys like us. Yes, we've all worked hard and overcome obstacles to get where we are. But imagine doing all that work and still not getting here.

I've probably annoyed everyone on this site at one time or another. NorBro thinks I'm a negative Nancy and I try to assure him that I would never tear apart someone's work to their face. Mutual support and constructive criticism is the name of the game.

You'll continue to offend or humor the same people if you stay the course. You can decide how much you care and if our criticisms have merit.
 
Time move on from discussing each other.

The subject of this thread is in the heading - "Large Sensor End Zone Cam... Your Thoughts."

Let's stick to that.

Thank you.
 
So, just looking at the TV ratings, it becomes clear why the NFL is trying to shake up its coverage, if just a tad.

Its top 18-49 demos came from a decade ago (the Packers over the Steelers), which was watched by 52.5 million fans in that age group. The one from last Sunday was watched by 34.3 million and that's one third off. Thus, the choice of halftime entertainment too. The NFL is trying to get the right demos back and they're failing bigly.

PS. Side note - there are also 10M more people now than there were in 2011. Projecting the 2011 stats should amount to around 55M by 2021.
 
David W. Jones said:
Because that would make sense!
Click to expand...

One thing the criticism might be failing to consider is COVID restrictions and also the normal-times restrictions of crew on the field of play. The NFL is conservative in regard to allowing tv crew to be in close proximity to the players. The Steadi Op is regularly going within 6 ft of the players. I suppose a 1st could pull focus from a distance, “remotely”. What is the distance range on FIZ systems? Note that the steadicam Op never has a Camera Grip with him to spot him, suggesting that the NFL is okay with the steadi Op alone being on the field with the players but is not cool with it being more than the one person. Smallest footprint possible, as it were. Even in pre-COVID times.

Years ago when I shot NFL as part of the in-house crew I would be allowed onto the field, with my Utility, for the coin-toss. I even got to be out at midfield for the coin-toss of a Super Bowl, which was pretty cool. But I was not allowed to go onto the field after a score, as the network Steadi Op is allowed to do.

There are still questions that the above would not answer. For instance, why the Sigma still photography lens?
 
First off--pretty embarrassing typo at Newsshooter: VENUS?!

As far as the Sigma lens, here is what Steadicam op Jon Mantak had to say about his setup:

"We used a 35 prime Sigma lens, chosen by CBS for 2 reasons. They wanted maximum aperture ability to ‘push’ the look, and the motor inside a DSLR lens vs a cine lens allowed the iris to be controlled remotely by the video operator.
Others questioned the lack of an AC to pull focus. Unfortunately that wasn’t an option. The NFL severely limited our on field personnel due to Covid restrictions, and it wasn’t in the cards, period."

As JPNola says above, a remote focus puller from the sidelines or even the stands would have been possible. And yes, a good FIZ system will have enough range to cover the Steadicam operator's travel from there, although with the amount of RF at an event like that it's not a slamdunk. Paired with a Preston Light Ranger, a great focus puller would have been the right way to go in my opinion (Jon feels differently).

Also not sure about why a Sigma still lens vs the cine prime. He notes above that the internal motor had something to do with it, but an small external motor would have done just as well again paired with a FIZ unit.

My armchair quarterbacking (as it were) is that this was a classic situation where decisions are being made by committee within a corporate broadcast environment that weren't fully thought through. I've been through this a few times myself and it is a bit ugly.
 
If "Venus" - she's got it, my baby, she's got it - was used for the currently unreleased footage, then its end zone celebration shots could be chalked off to having to be there. If it was used solely for the end zone celebrations, then it's odd all around and definitely a corporate decision.

To me, the smudgy shots weren't any different from A7RIV that FOX had late in the season. The sensor is the same size and they were both producing a 1080P stream.
 
As far as the Venice, one of the first NFL's major productions with it was last year's SB intros so it's not odd to see it on the field (especially a year later).

I watch a lot of NFL content and besides seeing Amiras all over the place, the Venice seems like it has replaced Varicams (the 4K ones).

Obviously a lot of content is being done for this company so there are probably still little segments being produced with Varicams and others with lower-end cameras here and there, but Sony has definitely found a larger video share in this company.

 
CharlesPapert said:
As far as the Sigma lens, here is what Steadicam op Jon Mantak had to say about his setup:

"We used a 35 prime Sigma lens, chosen by CBS for 2 reasons. They wanted maximum aperture ability to ‘push’ the look, and the motor inside a DSLR lens vs a cine lens allowed the iris to be controlled remotely by the video operator.
Others questioned the lack of an AC to pull focus...
Click to expand...
Charles for the grand slam dunk TD spike- thanks!

And the fact that they wanted to push the shallow look to the max??? Wow, shaking and scratching my head... :huh:
 
I am now getting the still lens advantage - the Venice allows for shading and colorimetry control like a broadcast camera, and apparently the still lens interface speaks through the mount to the camera so the iris is part of that control set for the truck. Very interesting.

I was also a bit confused by the use of a geared rubber belt with the operator's Stanton focus control, but it was also pointed out to me that this was a way to increase the gearing ratio and expand the short focus range with the hand control. Low tech but I guess it got the job done.

Super_Bowl_55_CBS_camera.jpg
 
Watching the UEFA Champions League highlights.

At 2:30 after a Real goal, this surely looks like a large sensor closeup .... but not as bad as the NFL tries.

The other is at 7:30.

 
The Villarreal goal celebration at 2:24-2:44 - sooooo out of focus on players jumping in.


 
Those half-sun/half-shade parts of the field are the toughest, but I've been wondering since 2015 why these networks aren't shooting LOG on some of these newer broadcast cameras (at least for the mobile units) and applying a simple conversion LUT in the truck. They would have an additional stop or two of DR and can further tweak the look of the Rec709.

It's not like they need to use all matching cameras because we've seen they clearly don't over the years (most notably with the Sonys this thread), and I truly think there really is no good reason besides simply being mostly comfortable with what they already have (and that's providing them the benefit of the doubt).
 
CharlesPapert said:
I'm not sure which is worse in that clip, the focus or shading issues.
Click to expand...

The camera operator was at the part of the field already being shielded by the stadium in the late afternoon match. The sun was setting but it too bright for the lights to turn on. The golden hour in reverse. This is actually pretty typical for older, smaller Euro soccer stadiums.
 
DLD said:
The camera operator was at the part of the field already being shielded by the stadium in the late afternoon match. The sun was setting but it too bright for the lights to turn on. The golden hour in reverse. This is actually pretty typical for older, smaller Euro soccer stadiums.
Click to expand...

I can see that it was in shade but the shot was already a good stop or more over the camera angle preceding it, was already overexposed on the shade side. And it went on that way the whole shot without being corrected. Suggests that whatever setup they are using that they don't have external iris control, which is obviously a bad idea given results like these.
 
CharlesPapert said:
I can see that it was in shade but the shot was already a good stop or more over the camera angle preceding it, was already overexposed on the shade side. And it went on that way the whole shot without being corrected. Suggests that whatever setup they are using that they don't have external iris control, which is obviously a bad idea given results like these.
Click to expand...

That I have no idea about. A typical sideline cameraman in a soccer match has a steadycam with a vest and an arm (a double arm?). The camera normally has a small sensor and, I assume, a fixed lens, since there's no need for a reach. All the action takes place right in front of the cameraman and he has to cover - once again, this is based on observations - half of the pitch, with two cameramen covering the whole side 50/50.

As to that post-goal sequence, it looks like the shadow from the stands extends about 15 yards in from the sidelines. Chances are, when shooting level, either the background is going to be completely blown or the foreground completely crushed on either manual or automatic exposure. Beside that, I have seen many a televised match when the main/midfield camera has to adjust its exposure when the ball moves from side to side and there is usually a lag even with the top tier crews. I have no idea if it's been historically done with the variable ND, iris control, auto ISO or what not.

Side note - I was taken to my first "professional" soccer match on May, 2, 1969. In the second half, the home team goalkeeper wore a baseball style hat with a visor in order to keep the setting sun out of his eyes. That was an ersatz manual ND.
 
I expected to hate the shot more based on your guys' discussion. But I thought it only got awful at the end as they were walking away. Yes, focus was spotty but until then it lent it an air of spontaneity. Definitely overexposed but not horrid until the highlights on the players just looked ugly ugly ugly. Which is funny because sony mirrorless cameras (is that what it was?) have a wonderful array of autoexposure tools for prioritizing highlights, frame-average, faces, and selecting the area to balance from (whole-frame, center, focus area etc). And you can also dial it in manually using the wifi smartphone app.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top